JuanKerr wrote:
How much influence does the NRA actually have in the US?

Depends on what they're trying to influence. This plan they've concocted on the backs of napkins won't be implemented. But they have a fair whack of influence on gun control politics by their lobbyist groups and influence on people by media.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas):
"I wish to God she had had an m-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out ... and takes him out and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids," Gohmert said of slain principal Dawn Hochsprung on Fox News Sunday. He argued that shooters often choose schools because they know people will be unarmed.

Commander Keen wrote:
They're one of the most powerful lobbies in the country.

To recap: It's the fault of the hurricanes, the media, poor people, and computer games. But not guns. Definitely not guns.

Solution: Armed guards (good guys he's calling them) in every school in the US by the end of January. Logic: Because we have the secret service guard the President, so why not our children.

It's beyond parody.

That is dumb but it is too simplistic to just blame guns. There are many factors which contributed to this and banning guns only solves one. Even then, it won't have any short term benefit due to the number of guns already in circulation.

The conversation shouldn't be about guns alone. It should be about why some American kids feel so isolated and messed up they react like Adam Lanza did. That would have to encapsulate the American culture, media, parenting and mental health care, as well as gun access. Only then will things change.

The gun is a means to an end but it isn't the reason for the violence, just the medium.

Well the ignorance in that speech was oustanding. Some of the language in the speech was pretty damning . Absolute protection? The whole idea of baddies vs goodies is so outdated. Armed guards in schools, thats not a an enviroment to raise kids in...etc etc etc.

Commander Keen wrote:
They're one of the most powerful lobbies in the country.

To recap: It's the fault of the hurricanes, the media, poor people, and computer games. But not guns. Definitely not guns.

Solution: Armed guards (good guys he's calling them) in every school in the US by the end of January. Logic: Because we have the secret service guard the President, so why not our children.

It's beyond parody.

That is dumb but it is too simplistic to just blame guns. There are many factors which contributed to this and banning guns only solves one. Even then, it won't have any short term benefit due to the number of guns already in circulation.

The conversation shouldn't be about guns alone. It should be about why some American kids feel so isolated and messed up they react like Adam Lanza did. That would have to encapsulate the American culture, media, parenting and mental health care, as well as gun access. Only then will things change.

The gun is a means to an end but it isn't the reason for the violence, just the medium.

Its a sad vicious cycle of the far right and the interpreatations of the bill of rights. The solutions to a lot of the probelms the far right pounces upon as an infringement on there idea of the constituion.

Right to bear arms, having to stand on your own two feet, Health care is expensive and any paid of care by the government is seen as socialism. Any government intervention is damn those pesky communists, Mental health is still seen as a taboo, american culture ostracises a lot of normal people etc.

Sadly, I think the NRA has hit on a winning approach to the problem. An American solution to an American problem. I see them getting a lot of support for it, leaving a lot of other people utterly baffled.

I would like to hear some talk from Obama on mental health, parenting, drugs, celebrity media and culture. While guns are a major issue that needs tackled, doing the same for the others is the right idea to move the US forward. They are all connected.

Getting support for it and actually having it go through are different things, though. I don't really see this proposed plan getting through. Obama can just veto it down if it gets to that stage (he can't rationally approve it -and- support tighter gun laws, realistically), and enough of Congress is Dem to avoid any two-thirds override.

It's hardly the first time the NRA have put this forward, I doubt it'll get more traction than it has so far.

Hell, the whole stupid situation has gone around and around for so long now. Anti-gun says tight regulation will bring down gun crime rate, pro-gun will quote Mexico. Anti-gun will say they have lots of illegal guns from the USA spilling in, pro-gun will say Canada doesn't have tighter regulations or a high rate and they share a border. Anti-gun says a crazy man with a gun will kill far more than a crazy man without one, pro-gun will dig up anecdotes about killers who managed it unarmed. Anti-gun quotes Dunblane, pro-gun says gun crime rose afterwards. And around and around we go....

It's still pretty simple to me though. To stop crazy people with guns, you either stop having crazy people or stop them having guns or both. If Americans want to stop having crazy people, they have to reform healthcare to be more...social. If they want to stop them having guns, they have to tighten gun laws. Both pretty anathemic to the GOP, who would rather wait for the mentally ill to perform a criminal act and put them in jail than pay for their healthcare.

SparkyMarky81 wrote:
There are many factors which contributed to this and banning guns only solves one.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with this general sentiment up to a point, but I think that this statement is perhaps a touch disingenuous. Guns are not simply a factor in this; they're the critical factor in this.

While no-one is going to suggest a) an outright ban on all guns and b) that getting rid of guns will make homicides go away, if this kid had gone into his school with simply a knife, there would be a *lot* less dead people right now.

Putting up an annoying low wall is a proven deterrent, especially in crimes of passion and opportunism, which this obviously was, at least on some level. It won't stop the organised gangs of criminals which you would differentiate this sort of thing from, but it likely will put an end to school massacres, or massively reduce them.

SparkyMarky81 wrote:The conversation shouldn't be about guns alone. It should be about why some American kids feel so isolated and messed up they react like Adam Lanza did. That would have to encapsulate the American culture, media, parenting and mental health care, as well as gun access. Only then will things change.

If what you're saying here, is that there is a societal factor in the US especially, then I agree. But I'd say that gun ownership and organisations like the NRA are a symptom of that sickness and are included in aggravating that factor.

Not nearly as many people need to own guns as do - most are purely recreational, despite a very bizarre revisionist approach to the second amendment by the NRA and friends.

You mention the media, and I agree, but I'd say it's the right wing media who whip up a froth about violence and danger and exaggerate the "good" of owning a gun for self-defence. Would having had a gun in her home (perhaps she even did) have helped Senator Giffords? In most cases, owning a gun won't help, unless it's locked and loaded in your pants / knickers every minute of everyday. Missus.

I agree that everyone needs to take their share of the blame, but it's a truth as simple as smoking = cancer, over-eating = fatness that guns = gun-deaths. Take down the figure on one side of the equation and you reduce it on the other. Simples.

Also, this was glossed over in the NRA conference because there was so much other batshit crazy stuff in there, but:

"[NRA suggested that] teachers in schools should be armed in order to better defend students if a shooting occurs."

Are you kidding me? Arming teachers? That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, on so many levels.

My wife is a teacher. She teaches RE, Philosophy and Sociology. There is no way on earth that part of her job should involve SHOOTING MURDERERS AT HER PLACE OF WORK. She's a teacher. Not a SWAT team commando.